Welcome to the PokéCommunity!

Hi there! Thanks for visiting PokéCommunity. We’re a group of Pokémon fans dedicated to providing the best place on the Internet for discussing ideas and sharing fan-made content. Welcome! We’re glad you’re here.

In order to join our community we need you to create an account with us. Doing so will allow you to make posts, submit and view fan art and fan fiction, download fan-made games, and much more. It’s quick and easy; just click here and follow the instructions.

PGM is all set for February. This month, we're playing through a game known as Eevee's Tile Trial. If you wish to earn rewards, please head over to our event thread by clicking on the provided link and give yourself a shot at the game!

Hey Unregistered! How fast can you game? The Marathon II is up and running in Video Game's - compete against your friends to see how quickly you can complete sixty intense in-game challenges. See you there!

I actually until this club had no idea that confirmation was a thing. It just seems like such a toxic concept - it's almost like a grab for control. Like, "OK, so you're Catholic, right? You're CONFIRMED. No changing your mind now, you're in!"

It isn't, actually, and I honestly don't know where you received that information.

Confirmation is, more or less, exactly what it says. You're confirming your belief, and vowing to defend the faith.

You can leave whenever you please, and nobody will stop you. The entire idea of the close-minded Catholic Cult Mafia Illuminati is... absurd.

To get back on to the topic at hand.

I was actually confirmed at the age of fourteen, while going through a pretty rough patch in my life. Before anyone asks, no, I didn't "Come to JAYSUS" and be blinded by the wonderful light. Quite the opposite, I pretty much... just stopped caring about a lot of things.

Being raised by lenient Catholic parents (the ones that teach their children to live an upstanding life, rather than trying to bring back the Bible-thumping Great Awakening), I was fairly comfortable with my faith, but, being fourteen, I still had several questions.

And, "surprisingly enough", I reached satisfactory answers by reason. I had a decent, competent religion teacher (something that most people seem to be deprived of, because apparently schools hire mostly strawmen nowadays...), a sub captain from WW2, who explained and argued, rather than simply saying "X is correct, all else is wrong."

When I was confirmed, I was no seminary student. I was no Biblical scholar, or walking catechism.

However, when I was confirmed, I felt strong enough in my ideals that, yes, I actually would stand up for them.

Two years later, I still believe that people should be treated with love, killing is wrong, and giving to others is good.

I do believe that there are a lot of lunatics that have distorted the message of Christianity, and I hope that they wake up and learn the truth of what they claim to teach. I acknowledge that horrible, horrible things have been done in the name of the Church, but I also note the good that is done as well.

I do not believe, nor do I demand, that a religious organization should be absolutely perfect to be correct, as I acknowledge that human weakness is part of reality.

I think that the black-and-white "Either God gives me X or He's wrong" way of thinking is patently false, and I think that the outright rejection of religion at the drop of a hat shows that the person was never truly religious, and I would appreciate it if we could cease the strawman burning.

I believe in basic goodness, in kindness and compassion. Though I know there are several people who could name Little Mrs. O'Leary down at the Church who advocates the murder of homosexuals, I could also name three of the greatest men I have ever met, who radiate such a quiet serenity about them that it's almost impossible to think that there's really nothing more to them than flesh and bone.

Of course, I can already see the inevitable accusations of brainwash and lunacy, but all I can is that I have a fairly open mind, so I ask that you all have the same. Understanding is not achieved through snipes, potshots, and anger. Understanding is achieved through civil discussion and dialog.

So, yes.

I am a Catholic, I was a Catholic, and I will be a Catholic.

EDIT: For the lulz, here's an article from Cracked that is sure to provoke... discussion.

I didn't receive any information lol - I was describing the vibe I got from the concept. Though "confirming your belief and vowing to defend the faith," while not being on the level of a 'Cult Mafia Illuminati', certainly goes toward my point. There might not be people beating you up if you try to leave, but it's certainly consistent with some sort of mental or emotional trap that would make it more difficult for somebody to leave if they begin to have doubts.

That's how misunderstandings occur. If I were to simply write an unfounded opinion, I would be butchered for posting drivel.

Quote:

Though "confirming your belief and vowing to defend the faith," while not being on the level of a 'Cult Mafia Illuminati', certainly goes toward my point.

It does not, actually. It's saying that, yes, the person is fully aware of what they're saying, and believe it's correct.

I don't understand why, nowadays, standing by your beliefs is considered evil and close-minded. If I am intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying, I should have no problem with confirming that I believe in it.

All those who said that they were "pressured" into Confirmation never received a valid confirmation.

Quote:

There might not be people beating you up if you try to leave, but it's certainly consistent with some sort of mental or emotional trap that would make it more difficult for somebody to leave if they begin to have doubts.

You mean people should be hesitant to switch their beliefs?

Well, yes, I do believe they should be. Otherwise, those beliefs weren't very well rooted, were they?

However, I understand that, in today's society, conviction is considered naive.

Personally, if you want a summary of what I consider Christianity, I would advise you to read C.S. Lewis.

Yes, even Narnia. It's not the Christians trying to shoehorn Jesus into fantasy, it's people realizing that Lewis was a Christian, and a brilliant one at that.

Yes, you can be Christian and brilliant. For further reading, see Chesterton.

I don't understand why, nowadays, standing by your beliefs is considered evil and close-minded. If I am intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying, I should have no problem with confirming that I believe in it.

That's not what I was saying at all; if it were evil or close-minded to stand by your beliefs, this club would not exist. A person of any faith can affirm and stick with their beliefs all they like; I would expect no different and I have experienced no different. The issue I take is with the formal Confirmation structure set up by the Church itself, which makes it seem like some Holy door through which one has passed and would in my opinion create a further psychological barrier against leaving the Church should a person ever feel so inclined. My issue is not so much with the fact that it would make it more difficult to leave as it is that it seems designed specifically for that purpose. You may hold your Church in high esteem and believe them to be above such intentional manipulation, but I can assure you that I do not.

Quote originally posted by Shanghai Alice:

Yes, you can be Christian and brilliant.

I have no doubt. Brilliance is not faith-based, but rather founded on qualities external of religious belief entirely.

Actually, if you'll look back, you openly admit to simply building a strawman and posting it as fact. If you're going to speak on religion, like a true Atheist, you would, at the very least, research and understand the thing you are attempting to oppose, in order to form valid, well-constructed arguments.

I'm seeing none of that here, and I'm seeing a disturbing amount of questions that go along the lines of, "When did you realize you were better than the institution?"

I came here for intelligent discussion and rational debate about life, science, and such things. The majority of what I'm reading falls more along the lines of an average "Rebel" thread on the internet, with everyone patting themselves on the back telling themselves how cool they are.

Quote:

That's not what I was saying at all; if it were evil or close-minded to stand by your beliefs, this club would not exist. A person of any faith can affirm and stick with their beliefs all they like; I would expect no different and I have experienced no different.

Looking back, the posts in this thread would argue with you. However, let's move on.

Quote:

The issue I take is with the formal Confirmation structure set up by the Church itself, which makes it seem like some Holy door through which one has passed and would in my opinion create a further psychological barrier against leaving the Church should a person ever feel so inclined.

Because you've made a commitment, and a man's word isn't to be taken lightly?

Once again, you're confusing the stories of "The mean man made me say things I didn't like!" with "I received a valid Confirmation in the Holy Roman Catholic Church."

I took my Confirmation voluntarily. I as a rational, capable human being when I did so, and I did it of my own will. So many adults do so as well.

As for the children who claimed that they never wanted to do it... I'm actually on their side. I believe that schoolchildren should not have to get Confirmation, and it seems that many in the Church are shifting that way.

However, I simply ask people to remember that nobody forced them to agree to anything. "Peer pressure" is not a valid excuse, because I would expect the rational, intelligent people in here to choose their own path in life and have the cojones to stand up to things they don't believe in. The sticking point is that I believe that standing up should be done in a rational, mature way. I am seeing little of that here, and more of people sticking it to the man.

If you're going to argue Confirmation, then please do a little research. At the moment, you're denouncing something which is entirely of your own creation, something imaginary. The evil, evil occult ritual which you claim to dislike is one that is entirely of your own creation, with almost no basis in reality.

And yes, there are reasonable, thinking people that defend Confirmation. Reasonable, thinking men that see it as something besides some blood pact meant to coerce people into slavery.

Quote:

My issue is not so much with the fact that it would make it more difficult to leave as it is that it seems designed specifically for that purpose.

It's designed to give people an opportunity to reaffirm their beliefs.

I'm going to ask you again, because I don't think I've gotten a straight answer from you yet.

If someone says they believe in something, and then they voluntarily confirm their beliefs, should they not be held to their word?

I'm old-fashioned. I believe that, yes, people should be held accountable for what they say and do. Not because of a higher power, but because that's what mature individuals do. If you say you do not believe, so be it. But to say that you believe, and then say something along the lines of "Neener neener, had my fingers crossed!", can hardly be called intelligent denial. If anything, it's the opposite.

Quote:

You may hold your Church in high esteem and believe them to be above such intentional manipulation, but I can assure you that I do not.

My Church, as you call it, is run by humans. Humans are flawed, and beautifully so. Flawed humans cause schoolchildren to cry and weep later in their lives.

The original Sacraments established by Jesus Christ, however, are not flawed. As I said, a distorted sacrament that is done against the recipients will is an invalid sacrament. Therefore, as I said, when you argue against the coercive sacrament, you are arguing and fighting something that does not truly exist.

Quote:

I have no doubt. Brilliance is not faith-based, but rather founded on qualities external of religious belief entirely.

Actually, if you'll look back, you openly admit to simply building a strawman and posting it as fact. If you're going to speak on religion, like a true Atheist, you would, at the very least, research and understand the thing you are attempting to oppose, in order to form valid, well-constructed arguments.

I'm seeing none of that here, and I'm seeing a disturbing amount of questions that go along the lines of, "When did you realize you were better than the institution?"

I came here for intelligent discussion and rational debate about life, science, and such things. The majority of what I'm reading falls more along the lines of an average "Rebel" thread on the internet, with everyone patting themselves on the back telling themselves how cool they are.

lol ok, well I'm going to leave that well enough alone and end it here, because criticism of myself and/or the club is only reductive to the discussion. My only advice to you is that you are more than welcome to introduce topics for conversation - if you have a debate in mind in which you would like to participate, please do not hesitate to do exactly that.

Quote originally posted by Shanghai Alice:

If someone says they believe in something, and then they voluntarily confirm their beliefs, should they not be held to their word?

Yes, they should, though that is somewhat removed from my point. My point has little to do with whether the confirmation is voluntary or involuntary at the time it is undertaken. I am fully aware that people choose to confirm their beliefs. My concern is that the official concept of Confirmation (notice the big C) within the Church is used as a psychological barrier against departing the Church later on should a person find their "confirmed" belief wavering.

Quote originally posted by Shanghai Alice:

My Church, as you call it, is run by humans. Humans are flawed, and beautifully so.

Right, and it's the motives of the beautifully flawed humans who run the church that I question. Their motives - short of an admission from the Church itself which I doubt would ever happen - can only ever be a matter of opinion and thus will forever remain in dispute, but my experiences with the Church have taught me not to be so fast to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Quote originally posted by Shanghai Alice:

May I recommend Aquinas and, once again, Lewis?

You can try, but I doubt I will ever read Lewis simply because I have zero interest in Narnia lol

Firstly, I do not think reductive works that way. In fact, I'm absolutely sure it doesn't. Please don't try to "embiggen" your vocabulary. No extra points will be given because of it.

More importantly, I simply stated that I have yet to see honest examples of honest debate. Admittedly, I have not read every single page, but I should not have to go over the thread with a fine toothed comb in order to discover signs of insightful conversation. This is, after all, a thread of the Enlightened.

However, I see that criticism of your beliefs makes you uncomfortable. I apologize.

I do seem to be confused, though. I thought criticism and skepticism was the backbone of atheism. Questioning and argument, along with demands for proof and evidence, should stir you, not corner you.

Quote:

My only advice to you is that you are more than welcome to introduce topics for conversation - if you have a debate in mind in which you would like to participate, please do not hesitate to do exactly that.

What values guide your actions, and what are they rooted in?

Quote:

Yes, they should, though that is somewhat removed from my point. My point has little to do with whether the confirmation is voluntary or involuntary at the time it is undertaken. I am fully aware that people choose to confirm their beliefs. My concern is that the official concept of Confirmation (notice the big C) within the Church is used as a psychological barrier against departing the Church later on should a person find their "confirmed" belief wavering.

You keep saying that, actually. And I keep responding with the Catholic perspective on it. Until you can show me examples of the Church using Confirmation to bully people into staying, I'll be forced to discard your observations as not rooted in fact.

The burden of proof lies upon you, as you are saying that the Church has turned a simple statement of beliefs into a weapon. Such a statement would require proof.

Quote:

Right, and it's the motives of the beautifully flawed humans who run the church that I question.

Because all humans should be perfect? It's a human organization. Though the message and core never changes, the means do.

Quote:

Their motives - short of an admission from the Church itself which I doubt would ever happen - can only ever be a matter of opinion

The Church has never admitted wrongdoing?

On the contrary, whenever Church personnel realize that something has gone horribly wrong, they usually openly admit it, and attempt to correct it.

Note that I am speaking about events caused by human fallibility that occur within the church. The sex scandal, which seems to be all the rage these days, mainly because "all priests are pedos because the news said so lol" sells newspapers, is such an example. The Spanish Inquisition, which is usually held against the Church even though it was carried out by a king, and the Church actually tried to mitigate the damage done in Inquisitions, is another such example.

However, the message never changes. That's one thing people seem to miss. Perhaps because it's inconvenient. Orthodoxy, mate.

Quote:

and thus will forever remain in dispute, but my experiences with the Church have taught me not to be so fast to give them the benefit of the doubt.

You're so tolerant.

Your experiences with the Church? What are you, Van Helsing?

Your experiences with a Bible-thumping old lady, do you mean? Or has the Holy Father personally wronged you?

I'm actually curious to know.

Quote:

You can try, but I doubt I will ever read Lewis simply because I have zero interest in Narnia lol

Not really. Take Galileo for instance, and the inquisitions attempts to attack him in the 1630's. Took the Vatican until 1758 to over-turn the ban on books that taught the Heliocentric view of the Galaxy. It only took 300 years for the Vatican to officially realize they screwed over Galileo, as he was cleared of any "wrong doing"and a formal apology was issued by John Paul in 1992 (along with the other 2,000 years worth of abuses such as the Inquisition, The Crusades, the Witch Hunts, etc). Galileo died in, 1642.

Geez Alice, seriously, chill. You can have a reasonable discussion about Catholicism/religion and atheism without being so condescending. I've had them myself with Andy, where he wasn't aware of some aspect of the Church, and instead of lacing every sentence I wrote with the implied "I'm smarter than you" that you are, I explained it and he understood and there was no conflict at all. I know you're a devout Catholic, but you shouldn't let Andy's opinions sway you to the point that you're rude to him because of what he feels.

My question to you is, how is Confirmation something necessary to your faith? Why do you need to go through a ceremony and say in front of everyone in the Church how you feel? And if you feel the need to, why do you need a ceremony to do it? The only point of a ceremony like that isn't to "confirm your beliefs", you can do that any day you want. I'm sure if you asked your priest if during parish announcements you could announce to the entire Church that you still believe, he would be more than happy. My old priest would have been fine with it at least.

The problem is the requirement of it for Catholicism. It goes hand-in-hand with evangelizing people. It just is not something everyone should feel forced to do. You can believe in everything in the Nicene Creed without feeling the need to go tell everyone you know how much you believe in God.

It's easy for you to say "you should just believe it 100% completely or not be a Catholic!", but you're in the uncommon position of having been raised in a highly Catholic-friendly household where you were given "God exists and is all-powerful etc etc" from a very young age. As much as I'm sure you like to think that that doesn't affect you, I'm just as sure that it does. But for others, who actually struggle with faith and want to believe but can't accept a certain part or something similar, Confirmation to them is a one-way gate, where if they say it and they're still struggling, they're now trapped. But you can't be a full Catholic without Confirmation. So they're barred from the full experience of Catholicism because they're not 100% sure on their beliefs. Which means they can't make a full decision with knowledge of what being a Catholic entails, because how can you do that without the Holy Spirit?

In addition, you can't just dismiss the way Confirmation is done nowadays by saying "well that's invalid so let's not talk about it". Andy is right in that it's often shoved upon people at a young age as 'the thing to do', so these kids are now Confirmed in something that they don't even truly believe in. It happens to adults too, because not all adults are as stubborn and argumentative with everyone around them as you seem to be. I was Confirmed at 16, fully old enough to understand the words I was saying. That doesn't mean I made a free choice, because I became Catholic due to my mom's wishes. But regardless of whether that Confirmation is "valid", it still acts as a gate that locks you in whether or not you want to be.

It's unrealistic to expect everyone in their lives, once they decide they're one religion, never have doubts or change their minds. In the perfect world of Catholicism once someone sees the light they'll never turn back to the darkness of hot, hot pre-marital sex, but in reality peoples' minds change and the act of Confirmation makes them feel as if they aren't allowed to leave the Church. Once again I ask, why is this necessary for Catholic faith?

[In fact, no. I'm blanking this long post, because I need to curb myself.

I am, admittedly, incredibly high-strung. I get overly energetic, put too much intensity into what I do. That applies to everything, be it running, driving, eating, or even things like schoolwork, or debating on the Internetz.

Earlier, I was hesitant to do this. I was afraid that if I yielded, others would see me as weak, would think that it was a simple cop-out because I've run out of responses. Honestly, I figured it would be hypocritical to advocate perseverance and energy, while at the same time dropping out simply because I'm afraid of getting too into a discussion.

And yet here it is, and there I go.

I sincerely apologize for all the grief I've caused, and will try to restrain from causing any more in the future. I need to remember to dial myself back a few notches, to realize that not everybody goes through life as I do, to remember that most people think that constant energy is undesirable.

I will make a better attempt to calm down later, so that I can debate with a cooler head. I thought I'd made progress by showing restraint instead of unbridled, and incredibly sloppy, emotion, but it seems like I still need to lose a few degrees and a few pounds in the head before I can discuss such things with others.

I disagree. My intention was merely to put my points forth, which I did - and I see nothing in Live_Wire's or Toujours' posts that suggest their behaviour was any different to that either. Additionally, "Why do you need Confirmation to be a Catholic" is in my opinion a perfectly reasonable question to ask in the endeavour for us all to understand each other and it was perfectly on-topic. There was no mockery in the tone that I could see, but perhaps you're picking up on something that I'm not.

Anyway, there's now vitriol all over my once-beautiful thread, so I'd like it if we could all just move on now

What values guide your actions, and what are they rooted in?

My main motto in life is this: "Live in a way that makes you happy, and do nothing that will prevent others from doing the same." That is the value that I carry with my everywhere, and it guides my actions - or rather, lack thereof. This is not rooted in anything in particular. I don't have a religious faith (and from what I've seen, lack of intervention in the lives of others is not at all in the handbook of any relgious organisation) and my parents are also not of that school of thought - so I guess I developed this attitude with my own mind, in and of myself.

Also, this might be a little awkward but I think this is a great opportunity to post one of my holiday snaps from my recent vacation. I met this awesome girl and we decided to strike a pose:

My values are enjoying life and not being a dick to people who I want to get along with, and they're rooted in not getting on others' bad sides and not going to jail. I don't need the threat of a big sky daddy sending me to a really really hot place for all eternity because I did things that others said that he didn't want me to do. I can be a good person for, you know, the sake of it?

Also, joining. I'm an atheist and I hate religion. I don't mind religious people as long as they aren't trying to convert me, be apologetic for their religion, or detach themselves from the negative aspects of their religion as if it's not their problem.

The thing you touched on there is the one part of atheism that I love the most - we can be good people for the sake of being good people, rather than for the sake of being "good Christians" or whatever faith is followed. By virtue of religion it is incredibly difficult to tell whether a person of faith is sincere in their goodwill or whether it is due solely to superstition. Though I guess as long as somebody is a good person, the reason for it doesn't matter all that much because the result is the same, I guess I'd prefer people to act kindly out of the genuine interest to do so rather than fear of divine retribution.

I've had this discussion before with one of my good friends from high school, actually. My school requires a certain amount of community service before you can graduate. If you don't finish it, you don't graduate until you do. My friend always hated this; she wanted everyone to be altruistic because they wanted to be, not because they were forced to be. I used to argue with her because in the end, the people you're volunteering for don't care why you're serving them food or tutoring them or doing whatever, all they care is that you did it.

Crap, I seemed to have started the Confirmation discussion and missed all of it, if I could explain myself?

The reason I hate the idea of Confirmation is two things. 1. I had no choice. 2. It can't be undone.

My parents forced my Confirmation. Hell I only went to like three of the damn classes. My parents said no Confirmation then you can't go to that school anymore. Now even though it was a Catholic school it was a rather liberal one, and all my best friends were there and it was the best school in the state. Once I was Confirmed the only way to have it removed would be to get Excommunicated. As in medievil times EXCOMMUNICATED. Do you know how hard it is to get kicked out of the RCC nowadays? Trust me, I've tried.

Also I've noticed that no one mentioned that Confirmation is a ritual, not just saying 'yep I believe'. There's fancy prayers and holy oil and bishops and stuff. You even get a new name! (You pick a saint's name)

Crap, I seemed to have started the Confirmation discussion and missed all of it, if I could explain myself?

The reason I hate the idea of Confirmation is two things. 1. I had no choice. 2. It can't be undone.

My parents forced my Confirmation. Hell I only went to like three of the damn classes. My parents said no Confirmation then you can't go to that school anymore. Now even though it was a Catholic school it was a rather liberal one, and all my best friends were there and it was the best school in the state. Once I was Confirmed the only way to have it removed would be to get Excommunicated. As in medievil times EXCOMMUNICATED. Do you know how hard it is to get kicked out of the RCC nowadays? Trust me, I've tried.

Also I've noticed that no one mentioned that Confirmation is a ritual, not just saying 'yep I believe'. There's fancy prayers and holy oil and bishops and stuff. You even get a new name! (You pick a saint's name)

Basically you're baptised as a baby. When you are a teenager you Confirm your baptism with others in your class. It's a simple rite that basically says, "Yep I believe and am ready to be treated like an adult Catholic!" I was 15 for my Confirmation. Once confirmed you are part of the Catholic registry.

Yes, I can walk away and act like it never happened. But according to the RCC, I'm still a member. I still am supposed to give my 10%, and I still receive mail and alerts and stuff from the church. I am still counted as a full Catholic and am added toward the total number of Catholics in the world.

I want it to be one less. I don't want to be a registered Catholic. I want my "Saint's Name" removed from the records. To do that I have to be excommunicated. Which is near impossible when my damn local archbishop won't do a thing about it. I've emailed him, and even went to the Cathedral. He keeps ignoring me. And he's the only person that can start the process.

I'm Christian, but I'm just visiting this thread to see what Atheists really think of religion in general. It's somewhat fascinating that majority of Atheists actually treat religion like it's their worst enemy and such a hindrance to their lives, even though they claim otherwise. Not trying to stir up controversy or anything, but so far it's the view that I found in majority of atheists. I'm sure there is more to it than that, though.

Quote originally posted by PhantomX0990:

Crap, I seemed to have started the Confirmation discussion and missed all of it, if I could explain myself?

The reason I hate the idea of Confirmation is two things. 1. I had no choice. 2. It can't be undone.

My parents forced my Confirmation. Hell I only went to like three of the damn classes. My parents said no Confirmation then you can't go to that school anymore. Now even though it was a Catholic school it was a rather liberal one, and all my best friends were there and it was the best school in the state. Once I was Confirmed the only way to have it removed would be to get Excommunicated. As in medievil times EXCOMMUNICATED. Do you know how hard it is to get kicked out of the RCC nowadays? Trust me, I've tried.

Also I've noticed that no one mentioned that Confirmation is a ritual, not just saying 'yep I believe'. There's fancy prayers and holy oil and bishops and stuff. You even get a new name! (You pick a saint's name)

I don't see how being "confirmed" is bothering you. If you don't hold the same ideas as those of Christians, and if you're an actual Atheist and truly don't believe in confirmation, isn't it easy to just forget about it?

I'm Christian, but I'm just visiting this thread to see what Atheists really think of religion in general. It's somewhat fascinating that majority of Atheists actually treat religion like it's their worst enemy and such a hindrance to their lives, even though they claim otherwise. Not trying to stir up controversy or anything, but so far it's the view that I found in majority of atheists. I'm sure there is more to it than that, though.

I don't see how being "confirmed" is bothering you. If you don't hold the same ideas as those of Christians, and if you're an actual Atheist and truly don't believe in confirmation, isn't it easy to just forget about it?

Though it's true, many atheists thing religion is a bad thing. If I dare say, most do. "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has."

Faith is the most dangerous weapon in any religion's arsenal. As Sam Harris said, “We have a choice. We have two options as human beings. We have a choice between conversation and war. That's it. Conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper.”

Another thing he says is, “Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities, and these divisions have become a continuous source of bloodshed. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it has been at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. These are places where religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in recent decades.

Why is religion such a potent source of violence? There is no other sphere of discourse in which human beings so fully articulate their differences from one another, or cast these differences in terms of everlasting rewards and punishments. Religion is the one endeavor in which us–them thinking achieves a transcendent significance. If you really believe that calling God by the right name can spell the difference between eternal happiness and eternal suffering, then it becomes quite reasonable to treat heretics and unbelievers rather badly. The stakes of our religious differences are immeasurably higher than those born of mere tribalism, racism, or politics.”

I think I've said it somewhere else, We are all atheists in respects to Zeus and Thor. Their faith that their people had for deities were as strong as any faith or belief now with the God of Abraham. How could people with such faith toss away this faith and instead worship another? Proof that faith is fleeting.

I believe that religion, especially this blind faith, is dangerous. Millions have died in religious conflict, in the name of their respective gods. Isn't killing still killing whether or not it is in the name of a deity? Is it still wrong to believe that killing is bad? Should I walk over to my neighbor who is Muslim and shoot him, and when the police question me I say it was because he was a non believer? It sounds wrong because it is. Yet millions have died in the same conflict for the sake of faith and religion. The Crusades, the Spanish Conquistadores, the Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, Protestants vs. Catholics, Thirty Years War, Taipeng Rebellion, the Islamic notion of Jihad, the Jewish Milchemet Mitzvah, the Christian Milites Christi, the Holocaust, the Reconquista, and many more.

There have been 123 major wars considered to be purely religious, 66 of them involving Islam. That doesn't include the numerous conflicts, such as Terrorism and the issues between the warring tribes in Iraq, or even the squabbles between warring tribes in Africa.

Same here. Although, after reading phantom's post on the rituals he performed as a catholic, I'm no longer surprised that nearly everyone I know, who went to a catholic school as a kid, is now an atheist. None of that really even has anything to do with God, as far as I can tell.

In my case, we don't have any rituals or any requirements, you just believe/accept God, and do your best to sin as little as possible, and you're good to go.

Though it's true, many atheists thing religion is a bad thing. If I dare say, most do. "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has."

Faith is the most dangerous weapon in any religion's arsenal. As Sam Harris said, “We have a choice. We have two options as human beings. We have a choice between conversation and war. That's it. Conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper.”

Another thing he says is, “Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities, and these divisions have become a continuous source of bloodshed. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it has been at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. These are places where religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in recent decades.

Why is religion such a potent source of violence? There is no other sphere of discourse in which human beings so fully articulate their differences from one another, or cast these differences in terms of everlasting rewards and punishments. Religion is the one endeavor in which us–them thinking achieves a transcendent significance. If you really believe that calling God by the right name can spell the difference between eternal happiness and eternal suffering, then it becomes quite reasonable to treat heretics and unbelievers rather badly. The stakes of our religious differences are immeasurably higher than those born of mere tribalism, racism, or politics.”

I think I've said it somewhere else, We are all atheists in respects to Zeus and Thor. Their faith that their people had for deities were as strong as any faith or belief now with the God of Abraham. How could people with such faith toss away this faith and instead worship another? Proof that faith is fleeting.

I believe that religion, especially this blind faith, is dangerous. Millions have died in religious conflict, in the name of their respective gods. Isn't killing still killing whether or not it is in the name of a deity? Is it still wrong to believe that killing is bad? Should I walk over to my neighbor who is Muslim and shoot him, and when the police question me I say it was because he was a non believer? It sounds wrong because it is. Yet millions have died in the same conflict for the sake of faith and religion. The Crusades, the Spanish Conquistadores, the Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, Protestants vs. Catholics, Thirty Years War, Taipeng Rebellion, the Islamic notion of Jihad, the Jewish Milchemet Mitzvah, the Christian Milites Christi, the Holocaust, the Reconquista, and many more.

There have been 123 major wars considered to be purely religious, 66 of them involving Islam. That doesn't include the numerous conflicts, such as Terrorism and the issues between the warring tribes in Iraq, or even the squabbles between warring tribes in Africa.

I get what you're jabbing at, and I do agree that religion can potentially be dangerous, but not in its entirety.

I believe that religion is just a scapegoat for all these conflicts, and religion is used solely as a reason for these people to cause those wars. There also have been numerous conflicts which didn't involve religion, such as Mongol invasions and Stalin's execution of 20 million people (not to mention tens and even hundreds of conflicts in Eastern Asia alone).

I'm religious, but am I a crazy person who wants to wreak havoc on my community? No.

As for confirmation, there is no "list" that keeps the record of who has been confirmed or not, unless you can provide a counter-example for it, in the form of a picture or whatever that'll convince me to think otherwise. Excommunication that you've mentioned is what happened in the middle ages, which is obsolete by now. If you truly want to distance yourself away from God, then just don't let these thoughts get into your head.

I get what you're jabbing at, and I do agree that religion can potentially be dangerous, but not in its entirety.

I believe that religion is just a scapegoat for all these conflicts, and religion is used solely as a reason for these people to cause those wars. There also have been numerous conflicts which didn't involve religion, such as Mongol invasions and Stalin's execution of 20 million people (not to mention tens and even hundreds of conflicts in Eastern Asia alone).

[As for confirmation, there is no "list" that keeps the record of who has been confirmed or not, unless you can provide a counter-example for it, in the form of a picture or whatever that'll convince me to think otherwise. Excommunication that you've mentioned is what happened in the middle ages, which is obsolete by now. If you truly want to distance yourself away from God, then just don't let these thoughts get into your head.

As for confirmation, there is no "list" that keeps the record of who has been confirmed or not, unless you can provide a counter-example for it, in the form of a picture or whatever that'll convince me to think otherwise. Excommunication that you've mentioned is what happened in the middle ages, which is obsolete by now. If you truly want to distance yourself away from God, then just don't let these thoughts get into your head.

They even keep a list of who donates how much in each individual church using the pre-made donation envelopes they send you, do you really think that they don't bother to record who was confirmed? Her wish to not be officially "in" the church is completely reasonable. When the Church claims that they have 65 million members in the United States, she doesn't want to be a part of that number.

They also record who goes to mass and who doesn't week to week, how often Catholics receive Eucharist at mass, how many people go to Confession regularly, and things such as that. Check out various statistics like that here.

It's unfair to tell her basically "I wouldn't have a problem with being considered part a Church I want to distance myself from so you shouldn't have a problem with it".

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.